[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Problems with lposix on win32
- From: D Burgess <dburgess@...>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:33:10 +1100
I would agree with leaving exec() for another day.
The only addition to the list that I would add is maybe unlink().
On 1/15/06, Chris Marrin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ok, I have looked at the descriptions of execvp() in win32 docs and the
> Posix spec. Win32 says it creates a "child process" while Posix says it
> "replaces the currently running process". I have trouble understanding
> this. Does the calling process exit cleanly, or just cease to exist?
On Windows it exits cleanly. If that is the question. While the
exec and spawn functions are OK, they have a few limitations with
> This is why I felt that fork() should be
> left out.
> should lose exec() altogether, and gain dir() and/or files().
agreed (for now).
> On that subject, it seems wasteful to have a forms of directory
> discovery which return an array of string names (dir) and an iterator
> which will return each string name in turn. It seems like we only really
> need files(). How does that sound?
the iterator version should be fine.
I like files(dir, [regex]) where dir is the directory name and regex is an
optional string.find compatible regex.